QUIROGA V PARSONS Sale of Quiroga beds to J Parsons who is also a merchant.

. The contract grants exclusive right for Parsons to sell in Iloilo. With an allowance of 25% of the invoiced prices as commission on the sale. Parsons should buy by the dozen. Payment will we 60 days from delivery. Trasnport shall be born by Quiroga, freight, insurance and unloading by Parsons. If payment is demanded before the invoice is due, there will be 2% deduction. There will be 15 day notice for changes in price. Parsons binds himself not to sell any other brand of beds. Parsons has exclusive agency The case was brough to court bec: defendant violated the following obligations: not to sell the beds at higher prices than those of the invoices; to have an open establishment in Iloilo; itself to conduct the agency; to keep the beds on public exhibition, and to pay for the advertisement expenses for the same; and to order the beds by the dozen and in no other manner ISSUE: WON Parsons by reason of the contract was a purchaser or an agent for the sale of his beds SC: The subject matter is that the plaintiff was to furnish Parsons with the beds which Parsons might order at the price stipulated and pay as stipulated. -The price was determined by Quiroga with a discount -There was an obligation on Quiroga to supply the beds and for Parsons to pay. -This was not an agency because Parsons did not receive the thing, not pay its prce and deliver it to a principal who pays and wht he receives will be given to Quiroga and if he doesnt sell the bed, he will return - The contract is for purchase and sale -none of the provisions of the contract convey an idea of agency. -the word commission on sales is a mere DISCOUNT. -the term agency as used in the contract only meant that Parsons was the only one who could sell the plaintiffs bed -Quirogas witness vs Parsons sued the latters company -Quiroga tried to prove that Parsons returned the beds he could not sell -The contract is clear, no need to interpret as per the consequent acts of the parties HELD: IFO Parsons PUYAT V ARCO Facts: Arco brought action v Puyat in CFI Manila for reimbursement for amount it overpaid. Arco bought sound repro equipment from Petitioner which came from starr pian, usa -Salmon and Coulette (Arco) and Gil Puyat and Santos (puyat) negotiated for the sale. Payment + 10% commission + freight etc - At the expnse of Arco Puyat sent cable to Starr inquiring about the equipment and quote without discount -Starr replied: $1700, but Puyat did not show the cable reply -equipment arrived, 1700 + 10% was paid -the ff year, another order was made for another sound repro equip n the same terms